Bishop Lori to Congress: Respect Religious Freedom

USCCB Chairman Backs Bills Protecting First Amendment Rights

WASHINGTON — In an escalation of the U.S. bishops’ campaign against “grave threats to religious liberty,” Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., endorsed three bills designed to strengthen First Amendment rights.

The bishop, who heads the newly established Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, testified before Congress Oct. 26.

“I am here today to call to your attention grave threats to religious liberty that have emerged even since June — grim validations of the bishops’ recognition of the need for urgent and concerted action in this area,” said the bishop. “I focus on these because most of them arise under federal law and so may well be the subject of corrective action by Congress.”

He appeared before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution to endorse three bills that would strengthen the religious freedom and conscience rights of Catholic institutions and individuals: the Protect Life Act (H.R. 358), recently approved by the House in a bipartisan vote; the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 361) and the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179).

“All three go a long way toward guaranteeing religious liberty and freedom of conscience for religious employers, health insurers and health-care providers,” said Bishop Lori in his testimony.

His appearance in Congress was the latest step in an increasingly visible campaign by the bishops to fight federal regulations they view as hostile to the religious freedom of Catholic institutions and believers — from hospitals and schools to social agencies that serve the needy, here and abroad.

‘Illegal Conditions’

Most recently, the USCCB Office of Migration and Refugee Services was denied federal funding for its highly regarded services that aid trafficking victims, after the Department of Health and Human Services stressed a preference for grantees that provide family-planning services.

Bishop Lori asserted that the “illegal conditions that HHS and USAID are placing on religious providers of human services may call for a congressional hearing or other form of investigation to ensure compliance with the applicable conscience laws, as well as to identify how these new requirements came to be imposed.”

CatholicCulture.org reported Nov. 9 that the USCCB has filed a Freedom of Information Act request to discover why HHS declined to renew a grant to aid victims of human trafficking.

In the wake of a controversial HHS rule mandating that virtually all private employer health plans provide contraception and sterilization services, the USCCB has gone on the offensive. Its president, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, has led the charge against the Obama administration, issuing a strongly worded letter that identified threats to religious freedom posed by new federal rules.

In his Sept. 29 letter to the U.S. bishops, Archbishop Dolan also targeted the Justice Department’s decision to file briefs challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). He said the Justice Department was characterizing the law’s supporters as bigots.

“If the label of ‘bigot’ sticks to us — especially in court — because of our teaching on marriage, we’ll have church-state conflicts for years to come as a result,” he said.

Following the demise of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the federal policy that once banned open homosexuals from serving in the military, advocates have intensified their attacks on DOMA. During his testimony, Bishop Lori called on the House to block a new bill designed to repeal DOMA, titled the Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 1116).

The U.S. bishops “applaud the decision of the House to take up the defense of DOMA,” said Bishop Lori, who asked the members to sustain that effort “for as long as necessary to obtain definitive confirmation of [DOMA’s] constitutionality.”

Asked to comment on the status of the bills that Bishop Lori endorsed during his testimony, Richard Doerflinger, the USCCB’s chief lobbyist on life issues, outlined the conference’s legislative strategy.“We think the most urgent priority is to get the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act passed this year. The language of that bill has been put into the House subcommittee draft of the Labor-HHS Appropriates Bill for fiscal year 2012.”

“Getting into the appropriations bill may be the only way to get the Senate to deal with these bills, just as Speaker Boehner, during negotiations with the White House over the last omnibus bill, was able to restore a ban on federally funded abortion in the District of Columbia,” said Doerflinger. He hopes that the next round of negotiations will provide a chance to improve conscience protections on abortion.

A second priority is the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, which would strengthen conscience exemptions for new coverage mandates created under the health law. “We are making progress on this bill, and (recently) we had our first Democratic sponsor in the Senate — Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.”

He confirmed that the HHS had yet to respond to the bishops’ request that religious exemptions be expanded in the federal rule mandating contraception coverage for private employee health plans.

“HHS has said they understood the exemption was narrow, and they may expand it. But they won’t go as far as we want,” he predicted.

Cultural Corruption

During the hearing, however, the USCCB’s advocacy of robust religious exemptions for Catholic institutions provoked skepticism from another invited speaker, Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He criticized the federal government’s faith-based initiatives program for underwriting religious discrimination and noted a number of examples of individuals denied or fired from federally funded jobs because of their religion or sexual orientation.

He challenged the need for more generous religious exemptions, citing a New York Times study of laws passed between 1989 and 2006 that identified that more than “200 special arrangements, protections or exemptions for religious groups or their adherents were tucked into congressional legislation.”

Said Lynn, “Religious organizations, therefore, surely cannot argue that the government is not respecting their need for accommodations.”

That assertion was challenged by Colby May, director and senior counsel for the Washington office of the American Center for Law and Justice, which defends religious freedom around the world. May focused on the suppression of religious freedom in U.S. public and private schools and universities.

Increasingly, critics of the government’s entanglement with church-based social service include orthodox Catholics who fear that state regulations dilute the religious identity of agencies like Catholic Charities. Some bishops have begun to explore alternative models for assisting the needy, an approach likely to gain traction in the years ahead.

In his testimony before Congress, Bishop Lori acknowledged that the recent intrusive federal regulations reflected a long-term legal and political effort to constrain religious freedom.

“The ultimate root causes of these threats are profound and lie beyond the scope of this hearing or even this august body to fix — they are fundamentally philosophical and cultural problems,” he said, and they must be addressed in a different forum.

The repudiation of the Christian roots of Western culture has deepened hostility toward the distinctive nature of church institutions, whatever worthy services they provide.

But Pope Benedict XVI has stressed that religious places of worship and programs play an equally essential role as mediating institutions that limit the power of the state.

Bishop Lori emphasized this point in his congressional testimony, which noted that “liberty is also prior to the state itself. It is not merely a privilege that the government grants us and so may take away at will.”

Said Bishop Lori, “We look to the state not to impose religion, but to guarantee religious freedom and to promote harmony among followers of different religions.”

Comments

I fail to understand why any of us give even bother to listen to these creeps? They are nothing but a bunch of “Scribes and Pharisees”. Where was their moral outrage and test of conscience when Father Pedophile was being sent to yet another school.
They disgust me.

Posted by Tom on Sunday, Nov 20, 2011 3:27 AM (EDT):

@Evelyn. You bring up an excellent point. The Catholic worldview espouses a concept of ordered liberty. In other words, liberty has its limits. Natural law and revelation constitute the walls of the playground. However, within that playground, we are allowed to express our freedom. The walls seem oppressive to some, but without them our true liberty would be compromised. Without the walls our society would be subject to the wages of sin; not merely personal but widespread, cultural, and socio-political. Sin is the antithesis of freedom and liberty. That is to say, sin is slavery. Therefore, gay marriage (so-called), if permitted through explicit or tacit acceptance, would be to push our culture into greater slavery and oppression. Your observation is more paradox than contradiction.

To further illustrate my point, we shall turn to the case Loving v. Virginia. In that case, put simply, the Court found that a state could not make restrictions on interracial marriage. Such a restriction would violate a person’s fundamental right to marriage. People often analogize Loving to the current issue of gay marriage (so-called). For the Catholic, these two issues are distinct. Why? Interracial marriage adds a condition to marriage that violates Church doctrine and the natural law. Gay marriage (so-called) undoes a tenet of marriage that violates Church doctrine and the natural law. Therefore, interracial marriage is permissible while gay marriage (so-called) is not.

Dr. Martin Luther King in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, channeling St. Thomas Aquinas, said, and I paraphrase, “an unjust law is no law at all.” Put differently, a law not rooted in the truth is no law at all since justice is rooted in truth. This is why the Church takes these stances: in favor of universal healthcare, opposition to abortion, willingness to harbor “illegal” aliens, opposition to gay marriage (so-called), and opposition to mandates requiring that the Church, through its social services, do what is cannot consciously do even if they receive money from the government (after all, entanglement jurisprudence is only as just as it is rooted in the truth).

What we are seeing is a divergence from ordered liberty. My Catholicism supersedes my Americanism. My pledge of allegiance is the Kingdom of Christ first, my family second, and my country third. Orthodox Catholics espouse this view. The Church’s worldview encompasses more than our personal lives, it encompasses or social, public, and political lives too. Government should bring about justice. Yet justice does not permit gay marriage (so-called) because it is not true.

I think we will soon see how fragile the social contract can be. I, and others, may take JM’s advice and end our social contract due to material breach. If you thought Catholicism “in power” was muscular, just wait to Catholicism is “out of power”. Catholicism “out of power” is the death of empires. I promise.

Posted by Evelyn on Saturday, Nov 19, 2011 9:28 PM (EDT):

It’s “respect MY religious freedom” but not respect for their religious freedom? If their religion has a different view of marriage, where is the respect in mandating that the law deny their view of marriage? People are curious about that.

Posted by teddy on Thursday, Nov 17, 2011 1:15 PM (EDT):

I am not for the church aiding illegal aliens. Why is the church helping the dishonest? As poeple & catholics, we are to respect the law—this goes against catholic teachings.

I do agree with the cultural corruption—Since the Obama Adminsitration, TV, magazines and the such has turned into a cesspool of disgusting behaviors being promoted at all times of the day.

Catholics and all religions certainly do need to be protected-For Obama is anti-church and anti-moral….

Posted by JM on Thursday, Nov 17, 2011 12:43 PM (EDT):

The UCCB is setting up a strawman to make it seem like the church is a victim again. Sorry, not buying it. If you don’t or can’t offer comprehensive health care services required when you take government funding, then don’t take the funding. It’s very simple. Nothing and no one is forcing you to take taxpayer dollars to deliver these services.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.